The National Trust was not to blame for the death of an 11-year-old schoolboy fatally crushed by a branch in woods in Norfolk, the High Court has decided.

I could envisage a scenario where they'd be liable - for example, if they knew the branch was unsafe and failed to take any remedial action then I would expect them to be liable for that.

While very sorry for the parents of the children I am glad that the courts found in favour of the National Trust

Unfortunatly accidents do happen and we should not be looking to "blame" someone everytime something happens

Schools imposing safety goggles for conker fights or banning them outright.

^^^Even if the land was perfectly flat and you did everything you could to stop people tripping over, you'd still have those trying to claim compensation. I think the law should be adjusted so there are no "no win no fee" lawyers/cases. Everybody involved has to shoulder some of the bill - even if it's £100 or so. Enough to dissuade those who are trying it on but not so much that genuine cases aren't heard.

had to do this when I worked for forestry commission if even the tiniest little branch at the top or middle of a tree was snapped or leaning over the footpath we had to kill off the whole tree with chainsaws then chop it up into little bits, such a waste to prevent the very very near impossible chance that that tiny little branch would somehow fall at the EXACT time someone was walking past and at the most scratching them

I read some HSE documentation that said the conker goggles thing was nonsense. I'm not saying non individual schools imposed it but it was nothing to do with the HSE.

Oooh I found this: http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/september.htm

It must have been a Daily Mail headline that I remembered. I never experienced any problems playing conkers when I was younger.